[Closed] Bands who wouldn't be famous if they weren't already famous

The Killers

BoardinBob

The Killers

+9000

Perversely, I like the recent Killers stuff and think the early stuff is really average

Sorry? So a band becomes 'famous' for writing decent music, then the output declines so they are not worthy of being 'famous'.

That question could be levelled at almost any band ever - I think the more pertinent question would be 'which bands have improved the quality of their music with every release?'

IHN -
[b]Perversely, I like the Killers stuff[/b]

You got that right.

It has to be U2, utter pants since ...............god knows when.

Now its all oversized sun spex and saving the rain forests, pants I say ! (mini rant)

mastiles_fanylion I think the more pertinent question would be 'which bands have improved the quality of their music with every release?'

Clutch. Tool.

[i]So a band becomes 'famous' for writing decent music, then the output declines so they are not worthy of being 'famous'.[/i]

Yes, that is exactly the question. Some bands maintain the quality of their output, give or take, throughout their careers. Some, few, continously improve. Others, probably rightly, achieve enormous fame through quality output but then just churn out sheer averageness that is lapped up by the press/fans simply because it was produced by that band, rather than because of it's intrinsic quality. U2 are a case in point.

Rock stars should make 3/4 amazing albums and then die in a pool of their own vomit at 34 with large amounts of highly addictive drugs spread around, at least eight "gas cookers" in attendance and the last unpublished first song of the never to be published 5th album on top of a piano ..............oh and a 1976 rolls royce bobbing in the swiming pool.

Pop stars today have not got a clue...............

I agree with Monty.

Didn't Robbie Williams once claim he had a dream that saw him going out that way? He wishes.

williams as a child, bring back

[img] ?v=0[/img]

I don't know much about U2 - they've always been a bit meh in my book but I actually liked one of their new tracks played on last night's Zane Lowe show - seem to have gone in a bit of a post-rock direction (I was a bit drunk however, so my critical faculties weren't set to maximum).

How about the Rolling Stones?

Oasis (but skipped the being-good-in-the-first-place part)
Elton John

Has Beck not tried to sue U2 over their new song yet? If not, he should do.

Nickelback (ducks for liking early stuff)

How did Nickelback ever become famous in the first place with their sub-Nirvana derivitive pointless crap?

U2, Coldplay and the Kaiser Chuffs

Always have been, and always will be utter utter arse.
i realise i dont have to listen to them, and i can happily ignore most crap music.
but those three bands offend me by thier existance, and i would be positivley happier if they didnt exist

Again, I'll raise my head above the parapet and say that I like Coldplay.

Kaiser Chiefs are, as someone on here so brilliantly put it, simply 'landfill indie'.

juliet and the licks are pretty poor

lilly allen is only out there coz her dads famous and shes ****in awful

keanu reeves and russle crowe also have cr@p bands crowes is particularly ****

Radiohead wouldn't make it big if any of their recent albums were their first releases. Nothing to do with the quality of their current work, but if it wasn't for the broader appeal of early stuff like Creep and songs from The Bends they'd probably be an obscure band with a fanatical following rather than a band that can do big open air concerts.

Would the Foo Fighters be famous at all if it wasn't for Nirvana?

I only ask as I can't recall a single one of their tunes.

wings

Wings were quality. Lot of musical content in there.

Cold play. But I'm not sure how they go famous in the first place.

The singer married a celebrity or something

rolling stones cant even do decent covers of their own music and last decent album was decades ago.

Yeah, but that's just cos they're old. Stones can be forgiven for that on the ground that they were one of the best bands ever.

Radiohead wouldn't make it big if any of their recent albums were their first releases. Nothing to do with the quality of their current work, but if it wasn't for the broader appeal of early stuff like Creep and songs from The Bends they'd probably be an obscure band with a fanatical following rather than a band that can do big open air concerts.

I dunno.

Every album's improved on the last but it's fair to say that the more recent stuff will have alienated a lot of fans expecting a re-hash of Creep.

And Kid A and Amnesiac were bizarrely the albums that really got them noticed in the US. OK Computer only reached 21 in the US charts whereas Kid A went straight into number 1 over there and Amnesiac, although it didn't reach number one, outsold Kid A in it's first week on sale.

In Rainbows is on near constant repeat on my iPod at the moment 8)

rolling stones cant even do decent covers of their own music

:confused:

Saw them in concert a couple of years ago and they were flawless!

I was only thinking the same thing about an hour ago when they had a trailer for U2 day on Radio 1. Can't think of a single song that I like. Remember though, as Steve Martin once said, talking about music is like dancing about architecture

LOL i've been reading stories about u2's demise since about 1989! I think they should keep going until the grave just to irritate the u2 haters out there like you lot!!

I do think the riff off the new song is the same as vertigo mind!

Another vote for U2 and Coldplay. And how about Eric Clapton? I am a devoted fan but he is still playing/recording and recent stuff is just lift music.

Joke (I think this was from Luis whatsit the talent show judge)
Q - what's the difference between God and Bono
A - God doesn't walk down Merrion St thinking he's Bono

Bob Dylan

Yep, Coldplay. Pants.

How bad were they on the Brits (& every other time I've heard them live)

I think Coldplay wish they were Elbow at the moment. One Day Like This is better than Coldplay's entire catalogue. I am somewhat biased, mind. The Foos? The Nirvana connection helped to start with, but they're an infinitely better band, with songs that actually have melody lines and aren't just repetetive dirges. Tori Amos did a stunning version of ...Teen Spirit, and was slagged off by the fans. Curt Cobain dead? Never mind. I love the Foos, great rock songs that work just as an acoustic solo as well.

Metallica?

+9001 for Upoo

And who appointed Bono as spokesperson for a generation?

We like bands when they are young and full of energy, angst and white lightning 🙂 Once they get a bit older and have been successful, the youthful exuberance is gone, and that my internet friends is what Rock is all about 🙂

In no particular order.

U2. War was a good album. Thats been about it.

Radiohead, utter, utter shash!

Arctic Monkeys, Kooks, Keane etc.

Perversely I quite like the first couple of Coldplay albums. Pulpy music has its place X&Y and the new one are crap though. Propbably more to do with the time rather than admiring the music.

I think Beck is getting better with age, but then the albums are all so different, thats the trick I reckon.

Queens of the Stone Age have been knocking out good albums for the last 10 years or so. Foo Fighters peaked at one by one.

Soundgarden quit at the right time.

Surprisingly, the latest Rush album is remarkably good...

Oh, and Bono is a ****er. I'm sure Paul is a decent enough bloke.

Conks

Oasis definitely, the last two albums have been trash

And radiohead

Bon Jovi. I never could say I was a fan of their music, but I did and still do like the song dead or alive, but having had the displeasure of hearing some of their latest offerings i am absolutely amazed people still pay to watch them.

Muse are one of the few bands that are still making good album after good album.

Ooooh, I made myself forget about Oasis.

I feel a bit dirty now

Big up to Elbow, Not a bad album yet, and seem to be a decent bunch of blokes, Guy Garveys 6 music show is good.

Conks

Radiohead, utter, utter shash!

I could sort of see where you're coming from with some of your suggestions, but that dear fellow is bollox. One of the most influential bands of the nineties are utter utter shash??? So The Bends and OK Computer, albums which get into the all time top ten in Q Magazine year after year are shash? Two mould breaking, era defining records are shash? Maybe in your esteemed opinion...to which you have a right, but maybe you're just not getting it.

Their later stuff, I admit was a bit up the bum but each album was always an attempt to move on, push boundaries rather than resting on the laurels of those two fantastic albums. And on all of those albums, there are two or three stand-out tracks. Many of your likes had already made their minds up about In Rainbows even before it was released. It's actually by far and away their best offering since Ok Computer.

So, I don't really like Bowie, I've never been gone on the Beatles (actually thought the Kinks were better but that's another thread) but then I read interviews of bands I really like and they all say they were influenced by some artists I don't like...Bowie, Beatles, Stones. But to say that any of those are shash would just be ridiculous.

Would the Foo Fighters be famous at all if it wasn't for Nirvana?

I only ask as I can't recall a single one of their tunes.

Burn the heretic!

The Foo Fighters are famous for being far more than just the band that the drummer from Nirvana started though if you don't 'get' them there is little point in trying to convince you otherwise.

[url=

]'Learn To Fly'[/url] is probably one of their most famous songs, though I guess primarily because of the video.

85,000 in Hyde Park the other year certainly shows their fame isn't something based purely on past deeds.

Offspring, Greenday, RHCP's, Foo Fighters all died creatively or sold out along the way.

Can't stick Bono - 'nuff said:

[img] [/img]

Listen to "Come Alive" and tell me honestly the Foos died creatively Swift.

Billybob, you obviously haven't heard Death Magnetic yet, mate.

U2 went crap after Joshua Tree. They weren't brilliant before it.

IMHO of course, feel free to disagree lol

Swiftacular - Have you actually listened to the latest Foo Fighters album 'Echoes, Silence, Patience & Grace'? Its a cracking album even though its very much a change from their usual form. 'Skin and Bones' is also a fantastic album which was recorded live and is made up of acoustic version of some of their songs, and even though it features some of their more famous songs (at least to a fan) they sound completely different and is a great example of their willingness to try new things, or creativity as its also known.

Of course any band that has got big, as popular and successful bands do, are often accused of 'selling out' but I'm not sure this label can be leveled at the Foos either. Whilst they did play some huge stadiums during their last tour tour (Wembley among others) they also played a lot of smaller venues in smaller cities, especially in the UK where their support has always been the strongest, proving that they aren't just about capital cities and stadiums.

The selling out was more aimed at the other three, foo fighters for me are a strange band. Got into a habit of front-loading all their good songs on an album, so after the first 4 you could turn off. Just the first couple of albums i could listen all the way through.
Just maybe im saying they only release half an album worth of good material per album. They still have their high points id be the first to agree.

radiohead
they have disappeared so far up their own arses they look out of their mouths! Utter self indulgent unlistenable toss.

rolling stones
nowt decent released in 30 years and still peddling off the sixties

REM
sign mega bucks deal and dissapear on earnings

As much as you all hate U2 it's easy to knock the biggest bands. Yeah Bono is a tosser with his human rights nonsense etc - even other band members hate it and let him get on with it. whilst he is likely to irk some, if he chooses to use his celebrity status to try and bring some good it's gotta be better than being a vacuous celeb like paris hilton.

I also commend U2 for being the only band who have been commercially successful and relevant over a 30 year period with new material( not simply plugging the back catalogue)I can't think of anyone else so i may stand corrected

So i'll be buying the new album and probably be seeing them live again like millions of others. It doesnt mean my opinion is right or wrong and feel free to hate them if you choose or get on your boots!

I fail to see how U2 are "relevant" to anything... Contributing to the development of new musical styles, pushing the boundaries - to me, that's artistic relevance. It's not possible to be relevant when you're over 40 and your band's been going 30 odd years.

LOL people said that in 1989!1 i'm glad they are still annoying you lot . I think it's great. If you don't like u2 don't listen to them.

Radiohead = Oh look at me i'm so emo, boo frickety.

Never will get the shash that is radiohead.

Influential, maybe.

Good. No bloody way! I am not into whiny music. I have listened to several of the albums a few times and always regret it.

Manic street preachers are way overrated as well.

COnks

David Bowie if we're expanding to include over rated

Isn't that kind of the point though? If a band becomes famous then they should have more creative freedom to express themselves. Some bands like Coldplay chose to release the same album over and over. Others, like Radiohead, at least have the guts to try something different> Personally I like odd music so it's welcome for me. I wouldn't want to own 5 rehashes of The Bends.

Well put RichPenny.

[i]i'm glad they are still annoying you lot . I think it's great. If you don't like u2 don't listen to them. [/i]

They don't annoy me in the slightest. I have had no feelings about U2 whatsoever, I was merely responding to your post. If you like em, you buy em. Me, I prefer to seek out new stuff and not listen to the same old bands year after year.

'which bands have improved the quality of their music with every release?'

Clutch. Tool.

Actually I found 10,000 days a massive disappointment!

Maybe I'm just not deep enough into the whole progressive thing but I love Lateralus, yet once the 1st 2 tracks are finished 10,000 days is mostly full of 10 minute songs of nothing but quiet noise.

It's not possible to be relevant when you're over 40 and your band's been going 30 odd years.

LOL,there hasn't been much decent music & hardly any original music for the last 25 years.Why do you think the "over 40's" bands get so many young kids at them ?

I'm glad U2 piss so many people off.I don't even like much of what they've recorded,but live they are awesome !

That would be funny if it wasn't so sad emac. Whole genres have sprung up in the last 25 years. One of the best things about music is that it continually evolves, with new peoples ideas being incorporated all the time. Say, for example, your three favourite bands are the beatles, led zeppelin and the pixies. Somewhere around the world someone loves them at least as much as you. And they're making music. Surely that's a good thing?

I can think of a few reasons why you'd see kids at older bands gigs. For one thing, a lot of those bands wrote great songs, that's why they're still popular! Bands that didn't tend not to be still touring.... Also, these kids will read about a modern bands influences and want to check them out.

As an example, in the late 80s and early 90s I was heavily into electronic music, but still loved the sound of guitars and vocals. It annoyed me that there wasn't much crossover between these types of music. Over the decade, you started to see more and more people blending these influences, creating a mountain of music that I love.

I think you need to accept that music did not die in 1980. Have you tried last.fm? Just type in one of your favourites and it will stream you a lot of similar stuff. I would agree that popular music these days is highly derivative, but you need to scratch the surface a bit more and I'm sure you'll find stuff you like.

Lol at the old fart using a derivative of the "there is no decent music these days, its all noise" arguement. Are you Jeremy Clarkson in disguise?

Jesus.
Still hanging onto the coat tail of his dad and rehashing 2000yr old miracles, PAH!

Do sommat new for Godssake!!

Richpenny.. 2009-25years = 1984,not 80...Must be all that shite music you've listened too.....

Oh & sooty,did I say "NO DECENT MUSIC THESE DAYS" ? if you're going to quote me at least get it right.As for Clarkson,I think you're more like him than myself tbh,well one of you is anyways.
"It's all noise"...I was into punk,kinda pisses on yer bonfire dunt it..

Bloody kids,think they invented music,as usual they know jack..... 8)

I would struggle to beleive that anyone open minded enough to be into punk could not find any music in the last 25 years to excite them.

FFS does nobody read things ? WHERE did I say that all modern music was crap,I said there hasn't been much decent music in the last 25 years & hardly any of it is original.
Anyway I think you'll find most old punx find it hard to like much new stuff,I still listen to a lot of the old stuff...

"same 7 notes and some slag poet quotes, put them together with glue...there's nothing that's new under heaven, there's nothing that hasn't been sung"

Most of the punks I know still go to new gigs.

^ & the last few gigs I have been to...Gogol Bordello, Vampire Weekend, Pama International, Louis XIV, Elbow...

A real mixed bag, all new & different.

^ & I'm a little drunk so talking out of my arse. That's ther great thing with music...we all like different stuff!

& I just like playing with people,music is always an easy one to drag people in....... 😀

what era punk were you emac?

I was a little young, so got really into the anarcho punk scene at the end of the 90's...

Morrisey

I've got a couple of old punk mates that only listen to old stuff, straight rock'n'roll and newer punk bands.
They're missing out on so much exciting music, as are you emac65. If you don't get it, you don't get it, but its your loss mate.
I could go on and list loads of exciting and original music from the last 20 years, but I've gotta take me dog out for a walk.
I saw 3 bands this week and loved em, they are definitely not the limit of my taste though - Late of the Pier, Secret Machines and Filthy Dukes.

I put 1980 because I assumed you were a bitter punk fan. I can count thanks. And spell too 😉

Dezb, I've got two teenage lads so I think I get to hear(through the ceiling !) most of the modern music,probably more than you actually as they're both heavily into it.....Both of them have pinched most my punk records too 👿

Spell really? Thought you just couldn't be arsed to go back & check like me,perhaps you should..... 😉
I'm not bitter,I just don't think it's as good & if you were there you would think the same.

toxicsoks - Member

Jesus.
Still hanging onto the coat tail of his dad and rehashing 2000yr old miracles, PAH!

Do sommat new for Godssake!!

Just spat ma tea oot. excellent 😆

Ha ha u2 all over the bbc this week!

Do they really need the promo at licence payers expense!

I don't own a U2 album. For that i am glad.

[i]Dezb, I've got two teenage lads so I think I get to hear(through the ceiling !) most of the modern music,probably more than you actually as they're both heavily into it.....Both of them have pinched most my punk records too[/i]

Excellent! Can you get them to recommend me some stuff? (Although I'd rather listen to it on my headphones than through the ceiling) 🙂